Navigate:

Critics find cracks in 'infrastructure crisis'

The cost of fixing and upgrading everything before 2020? A staggering $3.6 trillion. | Reuters

“I don’t think our bridges and tunnels are in imminent danger of collapse to the point where they actually present hazards on a daily basis to people,” said Rick Geddes, an economist at Cornell University who also served on a commission created in 2005 that took an in-depth look at the nation’s infrastructure. “There are indications that things are getting better.”

But Shuster said problems exist even if your local road isn’t falling apart in front of you.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“I think it is difficult for people to see because they see a massive Beltway system out there, and the folks aren’t on it and feeling the pain,” he said. “Massive congestion” is another result of aging infrastructure, Shuster said.

All the data and terms can be misleading, and there are apparent contradictions buried within the sea of numbers.

Looking at pavement quality for roads that get federal funding, conditions got worse from 2000 to 2008 if you measure by the mile. But the roads that improved were the ones that saw more drivers, so you get the opposite result — better roads — if the metric is changed to account for traffic flow.

Even the term “structurally deficient” is misleading — it doesn’t mean drivers have to do a quick U-turn to avoid a bridge slapped with the label. “The classification of a bridge as structurally deficient does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe,” the agency said in its report that catalogs road and bridge conditions.

For most Americans, “it’s all relative to where you live and work and where you’re driving,” said Brian Keeter, a former FHWA official who now works at Auburn University. All the talk of deficient bridges is meaningless to someone who doesn’t drive over any during a daily commute. And the stats about improvements aren’t much solace to someone who’s stuck in a backup because of a closed bridge.

Thune said some modes of transportation are doing well, thanks to the private sector. “Railroads is another example of massive capital investment, private investment, and with great success and with great result,” he said.

Indeed, freight railroads were the most improved mode on the infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, going from a C- to a C+.

Despite the lack of a clear partisan split in the debate, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pushed back hard against some Republican claims that crumbling infrastructure is just a talking point.

“Any Republican who is trying to make the case that America is investing adequately in its transportation infrastructure is living in a bubble,” DeFazio said while slamming a hypothetical “Republican legislator” who’s “riding the back seat of a limousine with really good suspension with his chauffeur driving.”

“He doesn’t notice that he’s stuck in traffic, he doesn’t notice the condition of the roads, he doesn’t see when they have to detour,” DeFazio said. “And he gets to the airport and gets in his private jet so he doesn’t see the conditions of many of our airports and runways [as he] taxis out, takes off, lands here. Maybe if they live in a totally isolated world of millionaires and billionaires, they think everything is hunky-dory.”

In the middle of the political debate over infrastructure is a healthy roll call of members who acknowledge that a problem exists, though it might not be as bad as the flashy headlines indicate.

The problem may not be as bad as some people are saying, said Illinois Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren. “But it’s also not as good as some people are saying,” he added. “There is a reality to this, and I think it’s healthy for us to talk about it in a rational, problem-solving kind of way with an eye on what the future’s going to hold.”